The creation scientists at the Institute for Creation Research (ICR) — described in the Cast of Characters section of our Intro page — have posted their impression of the big debate. The whole world has been waiting for this.
Their new article is Nye vs. Ham Debate: No True Scotsman. That title has a familiar ring, doesn’t it? You’ll soon see why. Here are some excerpts, with bold font added by us:
A surprisingly large number of people — some three million — watched live online February 4 as debaters discussed the topic “Is creation a viable model of origins in today’s modern scientific era?” Ken Ham took the affirmative position while “Science Guy” Bill Nye took the negative. During the debate, Nye’s use of a certain fallacy was soon evident, and viewers should beware of this tactic because of the subtle way it can skew perception.
What fallacy did Nye use? ICR informs us:
Each time Nye contrasted “Ken Ham’s creation model” of a young world with “us in the scientific community,” he committed the “no true Scotsman” fallacy.
BWAHAHAHAHAHA! We recently described that fallacy and wrote about ol’ Hambo’s use of it in Two Creationist Fallacies, where we said:
Ol’ Hambo constantly insists that he advocates true Christianity — which he says must be based on a literal wording of scripture — hence his strident young-Earth variety of creationism. In claiming that his version of Christianity is the only one, he’s committing the No true Scotsman fallacy … .
Now ICR is flipping the world upside-down and saying that it was Bill Nye who was being illogical. Their doing so, by the way, illustrates the tu quoque fallacy (that’s Latin for “you too”). One can see examples of it at any schoolyard: “I’m not a poop-head; you’re a poop-head!”
How did Nye commit the No true Scotsman fallacy? ICR first spends some time defining it, which is okay, and then they say:
The fact that Ham presented specific examples of fully credentialed scientists who adopted the Bible’s creation account of history had no effect on Nye, who continued to insist that scientists are evolutionists — by definition. The “Science Guy” insulated his assertion from scrutiny by defining “scientific” to suit his needs.
Yes, ol’ Hambo presented the “scientists” on his staff who have science degrees, but they don’t do any science — instead they spend their days serving Hambo’s mission to discredit the very science they once studied. So on paper they’re “fully credentialed scientists,” except for the fact that they don’t do science for Hambo, they oppose it. Let’s read on.
The common general definition of science includes observing, measuring, and interpreting natural processes.
That’s not quite it. According to the National Academy of Sciences, science is defined as: “The use of evidence to construct testable explanations and predictions of natural phenomena, as well as the knowledge generated through this process.” Even using ICR’s watered-down definition (which omits the key requirements of testability and making predictions), we don’t see how divine creation fits in, because its involves supernatural processes. By anyone’s definition (except a creationist’s) all things supernatural are outside the domain of science. Anyway, ICR continues:
But Nye’s definition of true science seems to involve observing, measuring, and interpreting natural processes only according to evolutionary tenets.
BWAHAHAHAHAHA! How could science, by either definition, possibly end up with a super-natural, non-observable, untestable explanation of anything? That’s why outfits like ICR have invented their own “creation science,” which they say describes scientifically impossible phenomena that occur in their alternate universe. Here’s more:
Nye was wrong to assume that no real scientist could ever hold the creation model, since scores of real scientists have and do. This is amply demonstrated in books like [references omitted]. And of course, early creation scientists forged the paths of each of today’s major scientific branches of inquiry, like Isaac Newton’s physics, Matthew Maury’s oceanography, Louis Pasteur’s immunology, Michael Faraday’s electromagnetism, and George Carver’s agriculture. Are we to believe that Newton and Pasteur were not real scientists?
That again! It’s been debunked thousands of times — see the section titled “Great scientists of old were creationists” in Common Creationist Claims Confuted. Moving along:
Apparently, facts like these do not matter to someone who is so fully committed to the false idea that real scientists only believe in evolution that he is more than willing to adjust the very definition of scientist to preserve his argument.
Lordy, lordy. For the zillionth time, a creationist can function in the world — but he has to ignore his magical alternate reality to do so. In his lucid moments, he can change a light bulb, play the piano, and practice dentistry. He can build a creation museum and run a creationist website. He can also (somehow) plod through school and get a genuine science degree. He can even invent the MRI machine. But except for preaching, he can’t do squat with the concept of six day creation or a recent global Flood. No one can. No one ever has. No one ever will.
Here’s ICR’s final blast at Bill Nye:
Why would anyone even feel the need to protect their anti-creation definition of scientist with a “no true Scotsman” fallacy unless the evidence for recent creation that believing scientists are prepared to present constitutes a real threat?
They never stop, do they?
Copyright © 2014. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.